Re: Feed History -02

I get the feeling that we should perhaps first list the main types of history archives, and then deal with each one separately. I can see 3: 1- The top 20 list: here one wants to move to the previous top 20 list and think of them as one thing. The link to the next feed is not mea

Re: Feed History -02

On 29/7/05 7:57 PM, "Henry Story" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1- The top 20 list: here one wants to move to the previous top 20 list and > think of them as one thing. The link to the next feed is not meant to be > additive. Each feed is to be seen as a whole. I have a little trouble still > thi

Re: Feed History -02

On 29/7/05 9:12 PM, "Eric Scheid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's conceivable they could also provide a feed for each publication > pointing to the table of contents feeds of each issue. That is, a feed with > an entry for each issue. There is another issue with the idea individual Atom Feed D

Re: Feed History -02

Below I think I have worked out how one can in fact have a top20 feed, and I show how this can be combined without trouble with the link... On 29 Jul 2005, at 13:12, Eric Scheid wrote: On 29/7/05 7:57 PM, "Henry Story" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1- The top 20 list: here one wants to m

Re: nested feeds (was: Feed History -02)

On 29/7/05 11:39 PM, "Henry Story" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Below I think I have worked out how one can in fact have a top20 feed, and I > show how this can be combined without trouble with the > link... > > > On 29 Jul 2005, at 13:12, Eric Scheid wrote: > >> On 29/7/05 7:57 PM, "Henry

Re: Comments Draft

* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-29 02:40]: > On Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 05:58 PM, James M Snell wrote: > > "root" is now called "replies-source"... which is a horrible > > name but I'm not sure what else to call it > > > How about "start-of-thread". Or maybe “parent-entries?” R

Re: Comments Draft

On Friday, July 29, 2005, at 02:41 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-29 02:40]: On Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 05:58 PM, James M Snell wrote: "root" is now called "replies-source"... which is a horrible name but I'm not sure what else to call it How about

Re: Comments Draft

Right. Nor is there any guarantee that the referenced entity will actually contain the original entry... e.g. it's possible that it could point to a feed that has been updated such that the original entry has already moved off of it. It's really just a hint as to where original entries MIGHT

Re: Comments Draft

* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 01:40]: > It's really just a hint as to where original entries MIGHT be > found. “originally-at?” Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //